The paradox of attachment

To attach or not to attach? That (really) is the question.

It is because of secure attachment - achieved foremost during infancy - that we can roam independently as adults. When babies’ needs and wants are met, they evolve into self-sufficient adults with the confidence to “go without” for a period. To the adult whose needs have been met throughout their childhood, this deprivation is assumed temporary.

Consider the child whose needs have not been met. The opposite rule holds: even in times of abundant emotional and physical resource, the availability is considered unreliable and temporary. It is, therefore, much more difficult for that “insecure” adult to take the risks required of significant independent advancement.

Enter: Buddhism. The Buddhist stance on attachment is clear: it is the source of suffering. Buddhists strive for s0-called “non-attachment.” This perspective is an acceptance of the reality that all things come and go. Impermanence is the nature of life. This is, of course, quite true. However, one cannot sit calmly in a state of “go” unless there is an implied expectation of “come.” Occasionally, the edicts of Buddhism - and more often those of its less compassionate cousin Stoicism - are offered to adults as cures for the ailment of lack.

Here’s the thing: attachment is not the problem. It is the solution. Through healthy attachment comes freedom and flexibility. The loss of one particular attachment does not beget a doctrine of non-attachment. It translates to the flexibility of attachment. One may connect to many things. In fact, the oneness of things is another principle of Buddhism. Furthermore, a young child with healthy attachment is one who is remarkably good at attaching to new people rather than clinging to a primary caregiver.

It is perhaps obvious when we work with children that secure attachment leads to independence and flexible attachment. However, the reverse is often not true: we rarely observe adults behaving in fear and prescribe more safety. More often, ignorant of the underlying mechanisms at work, we push the opposite: independence and non-attachment.

Psychology and Buddhism are not at odds. They are in symmetry. We must apply them appropriately. Rather then oscillating between the two views on attachment, we must apply them in unison when coming to the aid of our human suffering.

For some more long-form listening on the subject:

• Mothers discuss attachment from a parenting perspective with a Buddhist context

  • Sharon Salzberg interviews Bethany Saltman on her Metta Hour podcast

  • Or you can read the short-form interview with Bethany Saltman on Tricycle

• A writer-researcher revisits Romanian orphans deprived of human contact 30 years ago

  • Krys Boyd interviews Melissa Faye Greene on her THINK podcast

  • Read Greene’s article in The Atlantic Monthly

• A note on the importance of caregiving as a relationship filled by multiple adults, not solely a role of the parent(s):

  • “Young Children Develop in an Environment of Relationships”(2004); National Scientific Council on the Developing Child; Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University

• A Buddhist on Love

  • Maria Popova’s Brain Pickings covers legendary Buddhist Thich Nhat Hanh’s wisdom on “how to love”